Thursday, September 29, 2016

Darryl Perry today announced that he was running a write-in campaign for President of the United States.

Mr Perry did not discuss his plan with the Libertarian Party Radical Caucus Board of Directors. We were ambushed with the news.

The bylaws of the Radical Caucus provide for resigning from formal membership in the Radical Caucus simply by publicly supporting another party's candidate against a Libertarian Party candidate:

"E. Resignation / 3) The LPRC shall automatically presume a non­-voting or Annual member who self­-represents as a member of a political party other than the LP, casts a vote in the internal affairs or elections of another party, or who publicly endorses the candidate(s) of another party, has ipso facto resigned as a member of the LPRC effective as of the date of such representation or endorsement."

This is a resignation according to the bylaws of the Libertarian Party Radical Caucus.

While some within the LPRC are arguing this doesn't apply to independent candidates, I am proceeding on the fact that I am the person who wrote the automatic resignation provision and I know damned well what I meant. Running against the Libertarian nominee qualifies. He's publicly endorsing himself inviting others to vote for him, against the LP nominee.

Call him a "party of one".

Mr Perry certainly knew this action would be in conflict. He knew the bylaws and knew that provision. He also knew this would be unacceptable to a lot of us.

Yet he ambushed us with his announcement and did it anyway.

Regarding the reaction to his announcement, I find it truly disappointing that most Libertarians -- even among us Radicals -- know what "being held responsible for one's actions" supposedly means. But when it comes time for us to actually hold anyone responsible for their actions within the Party, they all go limp.

Regardless, Mr Perry's announcement was his resignation from formal membership in the LPRC.

He is welcome to rejoin at any time by following the LPRC Bylaws procedure for doing so.

Now that I have stated my position on the matter as one of the Founders of the LPRC and as a member of the organization's Board of Directors, let me state my personal position on his announcement:

In some ways I expected something like this. For many years we've tried to convince our fellow members of the Libertarian Party that better, more consistent candidates must be nominated. Yet while gladly accepting money and time from radicals and anarchists, often with annoyingly fake smiles, the opportunist, minarchist majority hasn't listened to a word.

Johnson could have spent the last four years becoming a better libertarian, and a better candidate. Had he done so, we wouldn't be having this discussion right now. Instead of studying up and doing a bit of basic philosophical homework, he has chosen to flip a giant middle finger in the direction of the Party's most faithful members and the Party platform.

Ron Paul made a political earthquake happen with one word: Blowback.

Well, Mr Perry's actions are a predictable blowback to a Libertarian candidate who can't bring himself to address the concerns of a number of LP stalwarts.

For me personally, regardless of my feelings about it being a clear violation of the LPRC bylaws, I would consider casting my vote for him if my state permitted doing so; and I also support his right to seek the votes of Libertarians.

It is worth pointing out that it is very likely that the votes Perry can take from Johnson will be minuscule. As D. Frank Robinson opined: "I think Johnson has a realistic shot at 5 million votes or less than 4 percent of an estimated 129 million votes." Perry will not attract more than a handful of those Johnson votes.

On the other hand, Perry's announcement may indeed speak to two other groups:

a) There are libertarians who are so upset with Johnson that they have said they will vote for Trump.

b) There are libertarians who are so uninspired with Johnson that they would have stayed home and just not voted.

If there is a chance at recapturing those votes, it is entirely possible that Mr Perry's announcement may do that.

So, my position is two-fold:

1) By his act he is no longer a member of the LPRC; and

2) I wish him all the best and would greatly prefer my state offered the ability to cast a vote for him if I so desired.

[This author wishes to note his gratitude to the following individuals for suggesting some perspectives about this which I found worth repeating: Keith Thompson, D. Frank Robinson, Rocky Eades, and several others.]

Perhaps Mr Johnson does not realize that all it takes to get on the No Fly / Terrorist Watch List can be something as simple as angering a Flight Attendant? And once you're on there, there is no defined procedure for getting off of it: You're hosed -- and by what standards nobody can say -- until some bureaucrat feels like removing you.

If they can do that for the 2nd Amendment, they can do it for the 1st.

This is one of many issues that sounds simple. Certainly, we must have security in the air. But since when has any government program ever worked as advertised?

With government, nothing is simple.

The real-world effect of giving government money and power -- in this case, air travel -- is actually quite disturbing. You can end up on the no fly list for just about any reason, and no justification is necessary: mistaken identity, or by angering a flight attendant, or perhaps annoying a government official for something completely unrelated to flying.

Let's put it this way: If Chris Christie will shut a whole bridge down in retaliation for one guy's refusal to support him, imagine what games officials play -- or might play -- with the no fly list.

Now Clinton and Trump are talking about stripping you of other Constitutional rights if you're on the No Fly or Terrorist Watch lists?

Johnson said he wants accountability in the process; and fast recourse for those who are on the list who shouldn't be. But there will never be accountability; there will never be transparency, and there will never be recourse. That's not how things work with government; there is no incentive to make them work that way.

The actual Libertarian position is: Yes, there *should* be a no-fly list. Two of them, actually:

1) If the airline doesn't want to sell you a seat, they shouldn't have to; and

2) Incarceration. If you've committed a crime so egregious that you can't be entrusted with a gun, or to be on a plane, then you should be in prison or otherwise prevented from hurting others in peaceful society.

If you like Clinton, would you trust Trump with protecting your right to travel (and your freedom of speech)?

If you like Trump, would you trust Clinton with protecting your right to travel (and your freedom of religion)?

If you're suspicious of either one, consider that if you grant the government the power to do what *you* want, one day that same power that you gave it will be used to take everything you have.

So, No, Gary -- the No Fly and Terrorist Watch lists maintained by the government are ineffective, counterproductive, and unconstitutional, and they must be abolished. Instead, Finking Feddie should concentrate on strengthening the ability of security firms and local law enforcement to get truly dangerous individuals off the street, and allow people and airlines the freedom to decide whether to associate with them.

Thursday, May 05, 2016

Whether you're new to Virginia or new to voting, we would love to help you get 'tuned in' to Virginia Libertarian politics!

Would you like more information to be sent to you about the Libertarian Party? Just fill out or "Inquiry Form", and we will send you sample copies of our newsletter and get you connected with the local chapter representatives nearest you.

Do you need to register to vote in Virginia? You can register online directly with the State Board of Elections. Need to check your registration status? That can also be done online, directly with the State Board of Elections.

Are you interested in registering as a Libertarian? No need in Virginia -- we do not have partisan registration for any party.

Would you like to help out with the drive to get the Libertarian Presidential candidate on the Virginia ballot? Then check out our "Petitioning Instructions" page. You will find downloadable petition forms and other ballot-drive resources and information.

Are you interested in getting more involved with the state or local Libertarian Party? Then fill out the "Volunteer" form and we will do our best to get you connected.

Ever thought about running for office as a Libertarian? Then fill out our "Candidate" form and let us know.

Ready to support the LP and call yourself a "card-carrying member"? You can join both the national and state parties with one visit to our "Membership" webpage.

There's lots more to be done. Some ideas are listed on our "Take Action" page.

If you have special skills that you'd like to put to work for liberty, then please let us know!

Really, in most states, being a supporting member of your state and national Libertarian Party costs $50 or less for both.

I am in favor of all delegates being allowed to do their jobs without being required to pay a floor fee; however, I am also in favor of requiring **every** delegate to be a dues-paid member of **both** the national and state parties (at least -- in many areas they could also be supporting a local committee as well).

You can help us eliminate the Deformer's "freeloader" argument by making sure you have made at least the basic dues donation for both your national and state membership.

6. FIND OUT HOW TO BECOME A DELEGATE FROM YOUR STATE
Find out what the procedure will to seek a delegation seat with your state LP.

If you don't win a delegate seat this year, then start working on the next cycle. Have some accomplishment behind you. Don't wait to organize a booth, do a fundraising round for the Party, recruit candidates and members, or organize your home precinct. DO IT NOW. Next week is too late; next month is too late. Do nothing and show up at your state convention and those who have done their homework will be first in line for those precious delegate seats -- ahead of YOU. Get away from the computer, get off the couch, and engage in a real political act.

BAD IDEA: Ignoring your state party's convention call.

7. SHOW UP AT YOUR STATE CONVENTION, AND SEEK ELECTION TO A DELEGATE SEAT.
SHOW UP at your state LP convention, with your LP activity resume in hand, and do what you need to do to be among those considered for a delegate seat. This is a fairly complete schedule:

BAD IDEA: Complaining when parliamentary tricks are used to silence and bypass you, and you don't know how to counter them.

BAD IDEA: Relying on the advice of "Registered Parliamentarians", who can't seem to understand the part of their training that dictates they must recuse themselves from offering opinions if they have a stake in what they are interpreting.

BAD IDEA: Relying on the advice of witch-doctor shamans who want you to believe they have special insight *you* could not possibly have.

14. HAVE A GREAT TIME!
I don't go because I think all of my ideas, candidates for LNC positions, or whatever will all win. I go because I want to see that crazy remnant I enjoy spending time with so much. Go for the drinking games, the parties and the socializing, and have a good time.

See you there!
-- end --

------------------------------------------------------------
Originally written January 2008, by Marc Montoni <AMCAmbassador@yahoo.com>, for the Libertarian Party Radical Caucus. This version released 2016. License to use hereby granted under Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported. See http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/ . All use of this or derivative works must include an unedited copy of this attribution statement as well as an unedited copy of the above original article (if used in a derivative work).
------------------------------------------------------------
For more information about the Radical Caucus, see www.LPRadicalCaucus.org or see the Facebook group https://www.facebook.com/groups/2497146127/ .
------------------------------------------------------------

Tuesday, July 28, 2015

Something that annoys me about Libertarians is that there are so many who think they know what is going on in the Middle East, but they've never been there.

Plus, they seem to have blinders on about half of the discussion about the region.

Yes, AIPAC and other such propaganda organs hold a disproportionate share of eyeballs in the policy-making community.

But the policy-making community is notoriously prostitutional in nature, and so the flood of petrodollars from the Arab governments into the American political marketplace ensures the Arab point of view likewise gets an outsized share of attention.

I find it very distasteful to find Libertarians jumping on the anti-Israel bandwagon. There is nothing about Israel that isn't true about a hundred other US allies.

My main concern with Libertarians singling out Israel for our ire and derision is that doing so makes us sound like Nazis who only find fault with Jews. Yes, there are so-called libertarians who *are* prejudiced against Jews, just as there are libertarians who are bigoted towards women, men, blacks, caucasians, and so on.

A pox on all their houses.

Bigots -- Nazi or otherwise -- should not be allowed to hijack the movement or the Party.

The only real "Libertarian position about Israel" is that we regard them no differently than any other government: We call for disengagement from all foreign conflicts and abolishing all foreign aid, regardless of the recipient.

A recent discussion reminded me of the lack of investigation libertarians are sometimes guilty of. Specifically, a friend related a claim from WikiLeaks

"... The State of Israel is conspiring to keep their economy at the lowest level of subsistence possible..."

I found this statement to be ridiculous -- regardless of the alleged source being a US Embassy cable. The Embassy is part of the US government -- and the US government is invompetent at everything it does.

The Israelis are no more capable of "keeping" the Gazan economy "on the brink of collapse" than the US government is capable of controlling the flow of guns, drugs, people, counterfeit products, or anything else across the Rio Grande.

Israel was for decades the largest buyer of goods made (or grown) in Gaza. The decline in exports from Gaza and the resultant economic repercussions were primarily a result of the Israeli regulatory boycott on goods which was instituted in response to repeated murders and rocket attacks. I suspect Americans wouldn't want to buy anything from Canada either if it was throwing bombs across the border every day.

There is NO prohibition on Gazan goods going to other countries from Gaza. Slowdowns of trucks (and ships) to accommodate searches for weapons and bomb precursors (as well as to calculate taxes), yes, but prohibitions, no. As if the USA doesn't have exactly that same policy. Ever heard of "US Customs"? Same freaking thing. Well, except there are a lot more things the US government prohibits from crossing the border (such as foreign medications, etc).

I suspect the KFC imports from Egypt are no more difficult than it would be doing the same thing across the border from Tijuana into California. Or even across the border from Windsor ON to Detroit MI.

Maybe the William Ellisson historical marker in Sumter SC should be taken down, also?

We could spend years figuring out how to get our society completely rid of all symbols that offend someone.

In fact, we could make a "War on Offensiveness", that will last us for generations, like the War on Poverty or the War on Drugs.

Or -- as a much quicker alternative -- we could take all the American Taliban Social Justice Warriors and dump them over Niagra Falls.

Those willfully and stupidly ignorant of history are doomed to repeat it. And the worst thing is everyone else pays for their folly. The way Obama and the rest of the idiocracy is poking at Russia and China, one day it will be the USA that will be overrun, demonized and erased from history.

But I guess that will be just fine with the American Taliban leftist swills who will be sucking at the breast of the state in that era.

Tuesday, June 02, 2015

Sometimes a conversation brings up memories of old friends. One good friend in my life was Carl Schumacher of Elkton, VA.

Carl was a LONG time Libertarian Party adherent. He was "brought into the movement" because his publishing company (X-High Graphic Arts, Elkton, VA -- which still operates in the same building now) printed many of Murray Rothbard's treatises throughout the sixties and seventies. He also printed Virginia Liberty for many years (1986-1993).

Carl's wife was Murray's sister. ((!!))

While I worked at Libertarian Party Headquarters (1989-1993),
Carl also printed several things for the national office, such as the 1987 & 1989 LP platforms.

We had them bulk printed, on newsprint. They were cheap that way. But they were also heavy. Both times I had him print the platform, the bundles of platforms filled my 1980 Ford Fiesta right to the brim, and the rear wheels were basically resting on the snubbers for the trip over the mountains back to DC.

Carl and an old buddy of his (don't remember his buddy's name). Between the two of them, they must have owned about 30 Studebakers. Carl's company for years printed the Studebaker Drivers Club magazine. It was one of the few club publications that really had magazine-quality work behind it.

I attended a bunch of Stude meets with them in the early nineties. About twenty miles into the very first trip, I realized I had to drive, because they couldn't wait to get to Pennsylvania before breaking into their "snakebite kit" (a box of about a dozen bottles of liquor).

Fortunately they let me do so without complaint, and for the next three years I was their designated driver to shows. Man, but they could plow through some hooch. One time Carl's buddy was so blotto by the time we got to the national meet that I had to fireman carry him into his room. I could never fathom how those guys made it out & back on all of their previous trips.

Carl passed away many years ago, long after I left the employ of LPHQ.

Cops, regardless which agency they burble forth from, are increasingly unwilling to respect anyone's right to life, liberty, or property.

The paid vacation given to cops after police assaults and killings is basically "paying a bounty" for civilian beatings and murder.

The main obstacle to reform is that government police face zero liability and are often given awards and raises for assaulting and killing people. These amount to powerful incentives to behave in ways that most people would normally never consider.

The culture must change, and no human/civil rights commission will change it. As long as police get a government paycheck, there is no incentive for police to respect anyone's rights.

At an LP gathering in May 2015, I was asked by a candidate for suggestions on presentation. He was wondering if he should tone down his campaign messages so that it wouldn't appear scary to the average voter.

Before I could answer, another person sitting at the meeting said "Pandering?"

He said what I was thinking; and it was a good (albeit flippant) rejoinder.

In the early 1990's, then-state chairman John Buckley was basically asked the very same question. His answer was immediate and without any hesitation whatsoever:

"Well, you're not going to win."

28 years later, I remember that response very well, and I repeated it to the current questioner.

"Are you going to win?" I asked. He understood immediately the import of what I was telling him.

"That certainly gives me a lot more freedom, doesn't it?" he said.

Indeed it does.

Being honest about our goals -- even our end goals -- is liberating. Being honest with ourselves about our prospects is also liberating. If we already know we do not YET have the money or manpower to be competitive, then the object of running campaigns is to GET the money and manpower gathered to the Party, so we eventually will have them in sufficient quantity to win.

So how do we GET that money and manpower gathered to the LP?

By inspiring people to join, donate, and run. Milque-toasty messages and candidates who refuse to say anything new or bold do not inspire anyone to join, much less vote for us.

I favor a message that will get the attention of the 1/4 of the population that is already BASICALLY libertarian, and provide them with the nudge they need to take a leap. Only a bold message will excite those kind of people so much that they're ready to sign on the line and send in their dues and become active.

Libertarianism itself is an abolitionist philosophy. Libertarians should always speak of tax abolition, rather than "tax reduction". We should always advocate the full repeal of (drug) Prohibition, rather than just "reducing sentencing guidelines". We should call for the abolition of entire agencies of government, rather than just "budget reductions" or "eliminating waste". Don't "reform" government police agencies, or call for "citizen review boards" -- speak for abolishing them all outright.

As LP campaigns move "up-ticket", they should be more radical, not less. A candidate for state legislator should use "abolish", "eliminate" and "repeal" much more often than a candidate for city council (although city council races can use a healthy dose of those things also). A candidate for US House or Senate should use those terms even more often; and candidates for President should use them most of all.

Up-ticket candidates should know the talk, speak it well and speak well of it.

We should give more leeway for those running for more local offices; but the centerpiece campaigns should be bold and clear about what we want.

If you're only interested in "tinkering-around-the-edges" reforms that are tepid and fearful, why are you even in the Libertarian Party? There are already two major political parties MUCH better-suited to dancing around.

Speaking just for myself... One thing I insist on is that any campaign I am actively involved in (either via donations or volunteer time) will need to have a bold and radical message. If I wanted "tax cuts", "less government", "mild government reform", and other things I can hear from a major-party candidate, I can spend my time much more profitably working for those things within the major parties.